Disclaimer: CurlingZone does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any Content posted on any Forums area and you acknowledge that any reliance upon such Content shall be at your sole risk. Any Content placed on any Forums area by users and anonymous posters are the views of the user posting the statement, and do not represent the views of CurlingZone or our partners, advertisers or sponsors. By posting anonymously, you are allowing your IP address to be displayed for identification purposes. CurlingZone reserves the right to remove any post at its discretion without warning or explanation.
04-11-16 09:42AM |
|
celtichound
Swing Artist
Registered: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 280 |
Not taking any issue that the the Japanese stone by the divider was out of play once it struck the divider. Also, even though there are no clear cut rules (that I can find) about control of the rocks, it would seem to me, that the delivering team is in control of the house, and should be responsible for their own stones. Although in this case I doubt they could've done much about it. Makes me wonder if they even discussed the possibility of the jam, since the Japanese sweeper didn't even look over to that situation till after the double contact had occurred.
I had looked through both the CCA and WCF rulebooks to find something that relates to this situation. I couldn't find anything that related to a stone rebounding off the dividers and striking a stone in motion, or set in motion, most likely, because they didn't think it would happen. So I copied and pasted the closest rule that seemed to fit. Actually, it was more of an attempt to show what options they had to resolve the issue.
The teams seemed to be satisfied (maybe the Japanese less so) with how it all worked out, and under the current rules, I don't know if they could've done anything different. Anyways, that's about all I have to say about this topic, I'm off to the Payers Championship this weekend.
Salinte,
C
__________________
It's not just a rock. It's forty-two pounds of polished granite, with a beveled underbelly and a handle a human being can hold. Okay, so in and of itself it looks like it has no practical purpose, but it's a repository of possibility. And, when it's handled just right, it exacts a kind of poetry - as close to poetry as I ever want to get. The way it moves.... Not once, in everything I've done, have I ever felt the same wonder and humanity as when I'm playing the game of curling.
Paul Gross-Men With Brooms
Most games are lost, not won!
Casey Stengel
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-11-16 09:46AM |
|
dugless_zone 13
Drawmaster
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: the Banana Belt
Posts: 990 |
since rulemaster continues to try to justify his mis interpretation of the rules we will go over things one last time and then we are done:
-rule 9 that he cites deals with stationary rocks, none of the rocks involved were stationary so that rule is not applicable, period.
- the rule state that player should catch rocks to keep them from going on other sheets. No rock went on any other sheet.
now for the facts that no one can dispute;
-a rock that touches the sideline ( bumper) is out of play immediately, no question there.
- the bumper, in this case is the sideline, put there to keep rocks from going up on the carpet into the walkway
-the bumpers are not in the field of play but outside it. no question there.
-the trajectory of the rock that hit the bumper was going away from the field of play and had the bumper not been there the rock would have continued on its path until stopped, always away from the field of play. again, no question there.
- the bumper, which is outside the playing surface redirected the rock which was out of play back into the field of play where it made contact with the United States rock, which at the time was in motion, not stationary. again, this is indisputable.
so, had the bumper, which is not part of the playing surface but outside it not redirected a rock that was out out of play none of this would have happened, but it did. You deal with what happened not what should have or could have happened.
last time I checked something that is outside the playing surface is external to it, and Opposing skips or vices stop rocks going out of play all the time.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-11-16 10:08AM |
|
lolar3288
Drawmaster
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: Burlington
Posts: 638 |
I waited until the end of the post to see if anyone considered the spin of the rock. That kiss may have slightly altered the trajectory, but it also altered the spin. How many times have you seen rocks stop outside the circles and rotate back into the circles up to a couple of inches. So the kiss could have prevented the rock from grabbing a larger part of the house.
Fact is no one actually knows what would have resulted without that very small touch so no one can condemn any decision. It all happen so fast. in the end the US beat Japan in the next game.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-11-16 10:55AM |
|
dbsdbs
Drawmaster
Registered: Feb 2013
Location:
Posts: 812 |
quote: Originally posted by dugless_zone 13
since rulemaster continues to try to justify his mis interpretation of the rules we will go over things one last time and then we are done:
... and then we are done. Hope you really mean that.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-11-16 12:03PM |
|
hurryhard
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Apr 2016
Location: Kelowna BC
Posts: 10 |
Shusters game
Knowing that there is only one game going there is refs at both ends and a head ref. It could have been handled quickly and properly
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-11-16 12:48PM |
|
broomsmith
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Apr 2016
Location:
Posts: 13 |
Definitely a topic for the rules committee to discuss in the off-season.
A rock bouncing off a bumper and hitting a live moving stone is awfully similar to an errant rock from an adjacent sheet sliding into your house and hitting a live moving stone.
In a situation where a rock from another sheet hits a moving live stone on your sheet, would the team with control of the house be considered the offending team?
I'm asking someone to explore if the rules are explicit on this analogy. My first instinct would be that there is no offending/non-offending team in that situation and the shot shall be re-delivered if an agreement can not be reached.
Perhaps the same rule should be/should have been applied when errant rocks are coming from a bumper instead of another game?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-11-16 01:54PM |
|
AlanMacNeill
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 1064 |
Nope, it isn't.
Because the Japanese team put the rock in motion, it is their responsibility.
As was previously pointed out by someone else, the US team had no physical way to stop the stone, as by rule, they are not allowed in the area between the Hog and the backline while Japan is shooting (other than the skip, who is restricted to behind the back line, unless working his own stone in motion in front of the T, which was not the case here).
Therefore, responsibility for the result of the stone is purely Team Japan's. Their action pushed the stone into the sideline, their action provided the motive force which resulted in the stone impacting the US stone.
Now, could a better sideline material have bailed them out? Yep, sure could have...but it didn't. That does not absolve team japan of the responsibility.
A rock from another sheet is not the responsibility of either team, as neither team imparted the force.
To say "Have Japan reshoot" is not fair to Team USA, as it gives Team Japan two opportunities to make their shot.
Shuster put the stones in what a reasonable person could reasonably believe was the position they would have ended up in had Japan not failed to control their material. That is the rule, it is the proper rule, it was applied properly, and the result is proper.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-14-16 05:07PM |
|
dugless_zone 13
Drawmaster
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: the Banana Belt
Posts: 990 |
Please post the rule that you used to come to this conclusion for all of us to see, it would really help.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-14-16 08:26PM |
|
SmokeyJoe
Hitting Paint
Registered: Apr 2006
Location:
Posts: 127 |
The WCF rulebook includes a glossary of terms. "External Force" is defined as an occurrence not caused by either team.
In this case, the shooting team caused the rock in question to strike the divider and bounce back onto the sheet. No external force was involved.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-14-16 08:36PM |
|
dugless_zone 13
Drawmaster
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: the Banana Belt
Posts: 990 |
quote: Originally posted by SmokeyJoe
The WCF rulebook includes a glossary of terms. "External Force" is defined as an occurrence not caused by either team.
In this case, the shooting team caused the rock in question to strike the divider and bounce back onto the sheet. No external force was involved.
The divider is outside the field of play, external to the playing surface and the divider altered the course of the rock, redirecting it from its intended path back into the field of play, the divider is the external force.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-14-16 08:38PM |
|
dugless_zone 13
Drawmaster
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: the Banana Belt
Posts: 990 |
and please, again, a term is not a rule, what rule are you applying?
Last edited by dugless_zone 13 on 04-14-16 at 09:38PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-14-16 11:04PM |
|
SmokeyJoe
Hitting Paint
Registered: Apr 2006
Location:
Posts: 127 |
The question is should R8(b)(ii) or R8(b)(iii) be applied?
R8(b)(ii) If a moving stone is touched, or is caused to be touched, by an opposition team, or by its equipment, all stones are allowed to come to rest, after which the non-offending team places the stones where it reasonably considers the stones would have come to rest, had the moving stone not been touched.
R8(b)(iii) If a moving stone is touched, or is caused to be touched, by an external force, all stones are allowed to come to rest, and then placed where they would have come to rest if the incident had not occurred. If the teams cannot agree, the stone is redelivered after all displaced stones have been replaced to their positions prior to the violation taking place. If agreement on those positions cannot be reached, the end is replayed.
Since there was no external force involved (the shooting team caused this to occur), R8(b)(ii) applies.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-14-16 11:11PM |
|
dugless_zone 13
Drawmaster
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: the Banana Belt
Posts: 990 |
The stone was not touched by any player and stones are not part of the players equipment. Equipment is defined as what players wear and carry, a thrown stone is not equipment or the opposition team. And the opposing team did not cause it, the rock was following its path out of bounds and would have continued on that path, away from the field of play but for the divider, which is outside the field of play and not part of the playing surface, which redirected the rock back into play. The opposition directed the rock out of play.
Last edited by dugless_zone 13 on 04-14-16 at 11:31PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-14-16 11:41PM |
|
SmokeyJoe
Hitting Paint
Registered: Apr 2006
Location:
Posts: 127 |
The possibility of the rock striking the divider and bouncing back onto the sheet did not exist until the shooter released his rock and the sweepers swept it down the sheet. The shooting team caused this to occur. No external force was involved.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-14-16 11:46PM |
|
Guest
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Feb 2005
Location: .
Posts: 1844 |
quote: Originally posted by dugless_zone 13
The stone was not touched blah, blah, blah, blah, ...
Give it a f$#@ing rest already!
__________________
Guest
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-14-16 11:55PM |
|
SmokeyJoe
Hitting Paint
Registered: Apr 2006
Location:
Posts: 127 |
quote: Originally posted by Guest
Give it a f$#@ing rest already!
LOL - I've presented my argument and will remain silent on this matter. Dugless may be from Zone 13, but external forces come from Area 51
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-14-16 11:56PM |
|
dugless_zone 13
Drawmaster
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: the Banana Belt
Posts: 990 |
quote: Originally posted by SmokeyJoe
The possibility of the rock striking the divider and bouncing back onto the sheet did not exist until the shooter released his rock and the sweepers swept it down the sheet. The shooting team caused this to occur. No external force was involved.
This is the most amusing try yet, first it was because they didnt catch the rock then it was because they threw the rock. Try that one on one of your US curling assciation officials and after they finish laughing and catch their breath have them explain to you why its wrong on so many levels.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-15-16 01:20AM |
|
chapnlie
Swing Artist
Registered: Jan 2005
Location:
Posts: 282 |
quote: Originally posted by dugless_zone 13
since rulemaster continues to try to justify his mis interpretation of the rules we will go over things one last time and then we are done...
PLEASE...can't you just walk away? We all know you THINK you are right so ... ENOUGH!!
Last edited by chapnlie on 04-15-16 at 01:24AM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-15-16 10:07AM |
|
ngm
Swing Artist
Registered: Feb 2011
Location:
Posts: 272 |
quote: Originally posted by dugless_zone 13
The stone was not touched by any player and stones are not part of the players equipment. Equipment is defined as what players wear and carry, a thrown stone is not equipment or the opposition team. And the opposing team did not cause it, the rock was following its path out of bounds and would have continued on that path, away from the field of play but for the divider, which is outside the field of play and not part of the playing surface, which redirected the rock back into play. The opposition directed the rock out of play.
Look up "textualism". You are being a textualist.
That philosophy of legal interpretation doesn't work with sport rules, which rely heavily on a common understanding of how the game is actually played.
In the case of curling, the common understanding is that the playing team is responsible for what happens during their shots. This common understanding takes precedence over hairsplitting interpretations of various words and phrases in the rules.
That's why nobody agrees with you.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-15-16 10:16AM |
|
On The Nose
Drawmaster
Registered: Apr 2014
Location: In the House
Posts: 608 |
I think it's quite obvious that no current rule specifically addresses the situation in question. Leaving it up to individual interpretation of terms like 'external force', etc. is not good enough. That is why there is so much confusion and uncertainty about this situation.
What is clear is that one of 2 things must occur - either they insert a rule which specifically and clearly identifies what the outcome will be when a rock rebounds off a barrier and strikes another rock that is in play, or simply get rid of the barriers.
__________________
"It is easy in the world to live after the world's opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after our own... but the great man is he who, in the midst of the crowd, keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-15-16 10:55AM |
|
Ajay
Drawmaster
Registered: Mar 2014
Location:
Posts: 570 |
Forget rule changes. That situation will likely never reoccur in our lifetime.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-15-16 11:02AM |
|
AlanMacNeill
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 1064 |
Umm...it happens regularly, actually...
It just usually doesn't get noticed because there's no question about "is that rock in or out?"
What they *really* should do is develop a more effective "bumper", one that absorbs the energy from the rock such that it doesn't come flying back into play.
Probably a softer foam maybe?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-15-16 11:53AM |
|
Ajay
Drawmaster
Registered: Mar 2014
Location:
Posts: 570 |
I did mean the bounce back. In this instance the time between bounce and hit was a millisecond. Nobody could have caught the stone, and the in or out could have been a fraction of an inch either way.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-15-16 09:54PM |
|
shirleyc
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Jan 2008
Location:
Posts: 51 |
shuster's decision
Get over it folks. This is a dead issue. He did what he thought happened. Respect him for that. It is a game and you play by the rules - which he did.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
04-16-16 02:36AM |
|
On The Nose
Drawmaster
Registered: Apr 2014
Location: In the House
Posts: 608 |
Re: shuster's decision
quote: Originally posted by shirleyc
Get over it folks. This is a dead issue. He did what he thought happened. Respect him for that. It is a game and you play by the rules - which he did.
^ That, of course, is nothing but your interpretation.
Present it as 'fact' as often as you like - but it remains but your perspective.
__________________
"It is easy in the world to live after the world's opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after our own... but the great man is he who, in the midst of the crowd, keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is . |
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|